ABOUT NATIONAL SECURITY.. National interests yet to be defined - Bala Nanda Sharma, Retired Lieutenant General Although national security is one of the most discussed subjects post 2006, Nepal as yet does not have a national security policy. Given the rapidly changing security situation in the country as well as in the region, the need for a national security policy is increasingly felt. Retired Lieutenant General of Nepal Army Bala Nanda Sharma has served with the UN in various capacities abroad, including as the Force Commander of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) in the Golan Heights and as an information officer at the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). Sharma, who holds a faculty position in the Department of Peace and Development studies at Tribhuvan University, is also a member of the technical committee to assist the Special Committee on Supervision, Integration and Rehabilitation of Maoist combatants. Pranab Kharel and Biswas Baral spoke to Sharma about the need for a national security strategy, how the concept of national security has evolved over time and Nepal’s vital interests. How important is it to for Nepal to have a national security policy. Can we do without one? As we do not have a national security policy, the security forces have developed their own. The security forces are supposed to formulate their policies on the basis of the national security strategy. The Army knows its job and so do Nepal Police and the Armed Police Force. But their policy is not hooked to the national security strategy. But some developed countries also don’t have a national security policy. Probably we can do without it for a few more years. But the best way is to develop one because then you become accountable. It is for the people’s representative to develop the strategy because if the Army does it, people’s representative will not have a say in it. In my view, we should develop a national security strategy as soon as possible. What kind of national security strategy does Nepal need, particularly considering that it is currently in a state of transition and its sensitive geopolitical situation? This is something to be decided by the people’s representatives. There has long been a demand for democratic control of security forces. But our politicians seem to have little knowledge of how the military functions. If the politicians educate themselves and understand the gravity of the matter and link it to national security, that would be in the best interest of the country. But it takes a long time. You need security even now. We could have a policy to address the needs of transition and then a task force could be formed to formulate a long term national security strategy. Such a policy has to be owned by the people. What are the pillars of national security for Nepal? The best way of determining them is first to identify the country’s core interests. Of the various national interests, you have to prioritise some, which then become national vital interests and they are sacrosanct. The Army is best designed to counter external threats to our national vital interests. But who identifies these threats? Obviously, it is the people who lead the country. All party leaders should sit down and identify these interests. Our constitution says that Nepal is sovereign and indivisible. So, these are our interests. How important are they? Do they come under our national vital interests or are they only national interests? Let the politicians decide. How has the approach to national security evolved over the years? In the past the king used to provide the guideline because sovereignty was vested on him. Based on those, the Army formulated its policies. There used be a document called the Red Book, which, according to my seniors, laid some guidelines on security matters. But after the restoration of democracy (in 1990) neither could the politicians give clear guidelines, nor could such guidelines come from the king. The Army continued with its old policies. The people’s representatives after 1990 did not touch any issue related to the Army and the Ministry of Defence. But this changed after 2006. The Interim Constitution has clearly spelt out the security needs. But there is no national security policy because of political differences. I think they are waiting for the next election after which the new people’s representatives will write one. What are the national security challenges Nepal currently faces? Security is a very opaque concept. You need security for everything—security of your geography, security of motherland, security of your people. But do you have a policy? Do you have the power to carry out these tasks? If not, why not? Even if you look at our neighbours, India has its conventional defence forces—land, air and sea forces—along with 17 types of paramilitary forces. They have police force at central and state levels. We just have an Army, one paramilitary force and one police force. So the question is: do you want to achieve your security interests only through your security forces only or do you want to achieve it through other agencies as well? You should first settle this. No country is a threat to another in the present context. But do you see a threat to your national vital interests? If you do, you can prepare your forces likewise. That has to be calculated on a rational basis. Some people say Nepal should not raise any forces because Nepal cannot fight India or China. If that is the case, why should Bangladesh maintain forces? Can it fight with India or China? This is not the way to think about it. The rationality is to go by your national interests. In the past we have been attacked both from the North as well as the South. Who can guarantee that we will not be attacked again? If it meets their interests, they may do it again. And if that is the case, shouldn’t we keep a force of defensive nature, which can counter an attack and help continue our development process? But this is something that has to be debated and decided among the people’s representatives. Of late both India and China seem to be pursuing their interests more aggressively in Nepal. How do you see this from a security perspective? If the country is weak politically then space is provided for outsiders. But if it is strong internally, I don’t think the foreigners can ever exploit us. If our leaders meet Indian or Chinese leaders to secure our national interests, that is fine. That is how it should be. If you see a threat to your interest and want to neutralise it through diplomatic means, there is no other way. But first of all you need to have a clear policy. You say Nepali politicians have very little idea about security matters. But we hear that a national security strategy is currently being drafted by the Home Ministry. If politicians have little clue about national security, what kind of a policy will it be? Generally, if you don’t give a task to the security forces, they will find one for themselves. What I have been hearing is that the home minister is heading a taskforce which has drafted a national security strategy. When I heard this I was happy. At least some initiative is being taken. But if you ask how can the home minister can draft a national security strategy, you ought to remember that there is no one in particular who has been designated to do so. In many countries, the people’s representatives form a task force supported by academicians. They come up with a white paper on national security which is then taken to the parliament and debated. There are issues on which parties can converge and they can become national vital interests. But as of now we are yet to define our national interests. It is under seven months for the expiry of the new deadline for the constitution. Can we agree on vital national interests to incorporate in the new constitution in such a short span of time? You do not elaborate on security issues in the constitution. Constitution can incorporate some policy guidelines, say about the types and number of security forces. More important is to start working on national security strategy on which all the parties can agree.
Posted on: Sat, 24 Aug 2013 06:15:52 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015